E 

.5 
L3.5 







Glass _£5j£l4^ 
Book_ 



3 :?' 



DISCOURSE 



ON THE 




LAW OF RETALIATION, 



DEHTERED IN 



THE NEW BRICK CHURCH, 



FEBRUARY 6, 1814. 



BY JOHN LATHROP, D. D. 

PASTOR OF SAID CHURCH. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE HEARERS. 



BOSTON : 
PCBT.ISHEB BY JAMES W. BURDITT. 

1814. 



A 



.LZS 



DISCOURSE. 



MATTH. V. 38, 39. 

YE HAVE HEARD THAT IT HATH BEEN SAID, AN EYE FOR 
AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. BUT I SAY UNTO 
YOU, THAT YE RESIST NOT EVIL. 

IN discoursing from these words, it is not so 
much my intention to show what opinfcns moral 
writers and writers on the law of nature and of na- 
tions have expressed concerning the doctrine of re- 
taliation, as to show what appears to have been 
" the mind of Christ," and what comports with the 
religion, which he founded, and which we profess. 

In that most excellent lecture on christian moral- 
ity, which our Lord delivered on the mount, he ex- 
plained several precepts of the law of Moses, in a 
manner very diiferent from that in which they had 
before been explained; and by some new com- 
mands, which he saw fit to give, he virtually re- 
pealed certain precepts found in the code appoint- 
ed for the Hebrews. 

In that admirable discourse, Jesus, among' other 
things, called the attention of his disciples, and of 



4 

the multitude assembled, to a statute given by Mo- 
ses, \vhich was supposed to tolerate a retaliation of 
injuries. " Ye have heard that it hath been said, 
" an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." That 
law we find in the 21st chapter of Exodus. It may 
be proper to inquire, how that law was under- 
stood ? How it was executed under the Hebrew 
government ? Is that law still in force ? What ap- 
pears to have been the mind of Christ with respect 
to it ? Will the doctrine of retaliation, as under- 
stood by the Hebrew^s, comport with the spirit of 
the christian religion ? Correct and proper answers 
to these, or such like questions, will give the infor- 
mation which we seek on the subject now before 
us. 

The law to which Jesus directed the attention of 
his hearers, in the text we are now considering, is 
repeated in the 24th chapter of Leviticus. ''If a 
" man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath 
" done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for 
" breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he hath 
" caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to 
" him again." This is the law to which Jesus called 
the attention of his disciples, and the people, who 
were at that time assembled to hear him. This 
law seems to require, or, at least, permit the judge 
to inflict the same evil, in kind and degree, upon 
the guilty person, which the guilty person had in- 
flicted on another. This is what is generally called 
retaliation. It is not only rendering evil for evil, 
but it is rendering the same kind of evil, and to the 
same degree. 

But before we proceed any farther we will in- 
quire, how was this law understood ? How was it 



executed under the Hebrew dispensation? Was it 
understood in a literal sense ? And was the judge 
bound to take " eye for eye, and tooth for tooth ?" 
Or might the judge, with the consent of the injur- 
ed person, order that compensation be made in mo- 
ney in lieu of "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth ?" 
An answer must be sought in the expositions, 
which have been given of this law, if any approved 
expositions Iiave been preserved. It is well known, 
that there were men among the Hebrews, at the 
time when Jesus was on the earth, called lawyers, 
and doctors of the law, whose business it was to 
study and expound the laws, to the end that peo- 
ple, in general, might understand and obey them. 
Among those lawyers, there were many, to be sure, 
who gave strange expositions ; and, by propaga- 
ting wild and absurd opinions, corrupted the law. 
Against such men our Saviour pronounced the 
" woe unto you, ye lawyers !" But we cannot sup- 
pose, that all of that profession, that all the ex- 
pounders of the law of Moses, were ignorant or 
wilful corrupters of the law. Although the age at 
which Christ appeared on earth was an age of gen- 
eral depravity, there were excellent people still re- 
maining. What better people are now to be found, 
than were Zacharias and Elizabeth ? We have the 
testimony of the divine word, that, while members 
of the Jewish church, " they were both righteous, 
" walking in all the commandments and ordinances 
" of the Lord blameless." What better man can 
now be found, than was Simeon the just. And Si- 
meon was a member of the Jewish church : he was 
" waiting " for the consolation of Israel, and the 
" Holy Ghost was upon him." What better wo- 



6 

% 

man now livetb, than was Anna the prophetess ? 
" She departed not from the temple, but served 
" God with fasting and prayer, day and night." Oth- 
ers might be named, were it necessary, who shone 
as hghts at that age of darkness and general corrup- 
tion ; ar.d we can have no doubt, but there were, 
in the Jewish church, at the time when Jesus was 
born, and after he left the world, pious and learned 
men among the Hebrews, who endeavoured to 
make themselves acquainted with the laws of Mo- 
ses, and from whose comments we may learn how 
those laws were understood, and how thev were ex- 
ecuted. 

From the best expositions, which have come to 
our knowledge, it certainly appears, that the men, 
who were entrusted with the execution of the He- 
brew laws, did not consider themselves bound, in all 
cases, to execute the law now before us literally 
as it stands in the sacred books. 

The injured person might choose, whether the 
man, who had maimed him, or had put out an 
eye, or struck out a tooth, should be maimed in 
like manner, and compelled to lose an eye or a 
tooth, or should be obliged to make such com- 
pensation in money as might be judged equivalent. 
" The Jewish doctors," says Dr. Whitby, " gen- 
" erally maintain, that the punishment of an eye 
" for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, might be re- 
deemed by money." Josephus, a learned Jew, 
who must have been well acquainted with the an- 
cient laws and customs of that nation, has the fol- 
lowing paragraph in the first book of his Antiquities : 
" He that strikes out another man's eye, shall for- 
" feit his own, and make satisfaction in kind, an eye 



" for an eye, unless he shall think fit to com- 
" pound for it with money ; for the law will so far 
" allow a man to be a judge, in his own case, 
** where he shall think it lit to moderate the ris-our 
" of a penalty for an injury done to himself." 
The most approved commentaries on the law of 
Moses are quoted, as supporting the moderate ex- 
planation of the doctrine of retaliation, which is 
here given by Jostphus. 

But if there was a law, under the Jewish dispen- 
sation, which gave a person, who had, by assault 
and violence, lost an eye or a tooth, liberty to de- 
mand an eye or a tooth, from the man, who had 
thus injured him, is that law still in force ? What 
do we find to have been the mind of Christ as to 
this subject ? Would such retaliation of an injury 
comport with the temper of the gospel, and the 
spirit of the christian religion ? To such questions, 
I believe, our text will furnish sufficient answers. 
" Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for 
" an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto 
*' you, that ye resist not evil." 

Here we have, what may be considered, a new 
Ijiw, for surely the word and command of Christ is 
a law, and ought to be considered, by all who call 
Jesus their master, a law, which they are bound to 
obey. Here we find a new law opposed to that 
old law of retaliation, which was given by Moses. 
That old law, therefore, however it might have 
been understood and expounded by the Jewish 
doctors, seems to have been repealed and done 
away, by the command of the Son of God, expres- 
sed in the last clause of our text. 



8 

The expounders of the law, which ^ve have been 
considering-, agree, that the injured person might, 
if he were so incUned, demand retaHation in kind ; 
that is, he might demand, that the person, who had 
maimed him, or deprived him of an eye or a tooth, 
should be maimed in the same way, and be obliged 
to suffer the same kind of loss and pain. It seems 
to have been left to the injured person to choose, 
whether he should be compensated with money, 
or have the law executed literallv. It is said, how- 
ever, that few people among the Jews were so cruel, 
as to demand "eye for eye, or tooth for tooth ;" 
and as learned expounders of the law gave their 
judgment that retaliation in kind and degree, might 
be dispensed with, in most cases a pecuniary com- 
pensation was preferred. It was in the power of 
the injured person, however, to demand "eye for 
*' eye, and tooth for tooth ;" and this kind of punish- 
ment, this retaliation of evil for evil, seems to have 
been the very thing forbidden by our great master. 
To demand retaliation in kind would have been, 
" to resist evil :" it would have been contrary to 
the command of Christ ; and contrary to the spirit 
of the christian religion. 

It is to be observed, that the law under con- 
sideration, never gave liberty to any individual sub- 
ject, to retaliate his own wrongs. If a man, by an 
act of violence, were maimed, or deprived of an eye, 
or a tooth, the law did not give him liberty to in- 
flict a like injury in a sudden manner, and in his 
own way. He must make his complaint to the 
judge, and the assault being proved, he was then at 
libert}', either to receive the awarded compensation, 
or require the law to be executed in all its severity. 



But this kind of seventy, in retaliating an injufy, 
was not allowed by the Son of God ; a punishment 
so severe and cruel, those who professed subjection 
to him, must not require. The learned com- 
mentator before mentioned (Dr. Whitby) observes, 
" Christ forbids the christian something which 
was permitted to the Jew." The thing permitted 
to the Jew, when injured in any of the ways men- 
tioned in the passage where the law is recited, was, 
that, if he saw fit, he might demand retaliation in 
kind ; but this, which would be to " resist evil," 
is absolutely forbidden the christian, in the words 
which make the closing part of our text. 

We have now, perhaps, said as much as may be 
necessary in answer to the questions proposed at 
the beginning of this discourse ; and I believe we 
are now able to understand, what was the mind of 
Christ, with respect to the law of retaliation. You 
will please to attend to such remarks and observa- 
tions, as may naturally rise from the subject, and 
from the thoughts which have already been sug- 
gested. And, 

1. The subject and the thoughts, which have 
been suggested, lead us to admire and to love the. 
christian religion. This religion is mild and gen- 
tle, as was its author. It may be supposed, that 
the men of the world, men of fashion and gaiety, 
will not be pleased with this religion, because it 
brings restraints with it, and will not allow them to 
resent injuries in their own way, and render evil for 
evil. Men of high spirits, when injured in person, 
in property or character, are in haste to avenge 
themselves. They cannot be pleased with a relig- 
ion, which require^ them to suppress their resent- 
2 



10 

nients, and commit their cause to a well regulated 
tribunal. And if they cannot be easily persuaded 
to wait until the judge shall declare what compen- 
sation they shall receive for the injuries, which they 
have suffered, it can hardly be supposed they will 
be willing to forgive their enemies, and pray for 
those, who have spoken evil of them, and persecu- 
ted them. 

But the effects of this religion, although despised 
by the high-minded children of men, would be in- 
expressibly beneficial to mankind, were it univer- 
sally received. This religion breathes nothing but 
peace and good will. The spirit of this religion is 
opposed to violence and strife, and every species of 
warfare, except that which is necessary to defence. 

2. As the spirit of the christian religion is mild 
and gentle, those, who sincerely embrace this reli- 
gion, will resemble their Lord and Master in their 
temper and conduct. " If it be possible, as 
" much as lieth in them, they will live peaceably 
" with all men." The true subjects of the Prince 
of Peace will be the last men on earth to blow the 
trumpet of war. They will never take the sword 
but in defence of rights highly important, and such 
as are essential to their safety and happiness. Men, 
therefore, who are in haste to make war, and are 
amona: the first to excite their brethren to deeds of 
violence and blood, are not true subjects of the 
Prince of Peace ; but are in subjection to him, 
who first excited rebellion and war among the crea- 
tures of God. 

3. It will follow, as a just inference from what 
has been said, that the practice of retaliat'mg inju- 
riesy which has been too long tolerated, even in 



11 

christian countries, is contrary to the spirit of the 
gospel, and the express prohibition of Jesus, who 
came to teach the perfect will of the Father, both 
by word and by example. We need no farther ev- 
idence, than is found in the text, which we have 
been considering, to prove, that the Son of God 
will not allow the subjects of his government to 
retaliate injuries. " Ye have heard that it hath 
" been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
" tooth ; but I say unto you, that ye resist not 
"evil." 

Under the Jewish dispensation, a man who had 
been injured, and by an act of violence had lost an 
eye or a tooth, might not take satisfaction in his 
own way by inflicting a like injury. He must sub- 
mit his cause to the judge, and, when the fact was 
proved, he might choose whether to receive com- 
pensation in money, or require, according to the 
phrase in common use, " eye for eye, and tooth for 
" tooth." But this part of the law appears to have 
been done away by the prohibition in the text. 
The Son of God would not allow the subjects of 
his government to indulge a spirit of revenge : he 
would not permit his disciples to do what had been 
tolerated under the Jewish law. 

4. If private christians may not retaliate injuries 
by rendering evil for evil, christian rulers are no 
doubt under the same restraint. Rulers of chris- 
tian countries, of nations and kingdoms, where the 
christian religion is generally professed, ought to 
examine the subject, which we have been consider- 
ing, with care, and be extremely cautious lest they 
offend the Son of God, by setting up a rule in the 



12 

infliction of punishment, contrary to his positive 
order. 

When one nation, for no just cause, makes in- 
roads on the rights of another, the injured nation 
may, no doubt, take up arms in its own defence. 
There is nothing, in the rehgion of the Prince of 
Peace, which forbids such kind of warfare. Our 
Lord let his disciples know the time might come, 
when they would need, and of consequence might 
make use of swords, and therefore gave the following 
direction, (Luke xxii) " He that hath no sword, 
" let him sell his garment and buy one." But 
that kind of warfare, which is tolerated by the gos- 
pel, is altogether defensive, and is as different, as 
can be, from the warfare which is carried on by the 
sons of pride and ambition for purposes of con- 
quest and fame. But if christian nations may take 
the sword, only in defence of their persons, their 
rights, and their country, when invaded, they are 
not permitted to retaliate, according to the common 
meaning of the term. If one nation invades anoth- 
er, and lays waste by fire and sword ; and the in- 
jured nation, to retaliate its wrongs, invades in turn, 
and burns and destroys, the countries in which 
such savage warfare is prosecuted, must, in the 
end, be depopulated. This is the worst kind of 
warfare ; it is the warfare of barbarians ; and those, 
who begin it, in any country, deserve the execration 
of mankind, and will sooner or later meet the 
vengeance of heaven. 

5. If it be contrary to the spirit of the gospel 
for christian rulers to carry on a war of retaliation 
against a nation which has made war upon them, 



13 

it will be plain, that christian rulers may not retali- 
ate on innocent subjects of an enemy nation inju- 
ries, which the rulers of that enemy nation may 
have exercised on captives or other subjects, which 
such enemy nation may have in his power. 

This is the most cruel sort of retaliation ever 
threatened by civilized man ; and happy is it for the 
world, that so many good men have remonstrated 
against it, that few, who have had it in their power, 
were sufficiently hard-hearted to execute what they 
have sometimes threatened. For nation to retaliate 
on nation^ in open war, burning for burning, and 
devastation for devastation, is too bad for christian 
rulers to encourage, and is a kind of warfare, which 
one would suppose must make a barbarian shudder. 
But if such kind of warfare is too bad for any 
christian rulers to encourage, what must we think 
of the kind of retaliation which was last mentioned ? 
What must we think of the rulers of any nation, 
who, in cool blood, can take the innocent subjects 
of another nation, and put them to death, to retali- 
ate the supposed wrongs, which that other nation 
may have committed ? What must all good men 
think of such retaliation ? I will not express my 
own thoughts, for I am not master of language 
strong enough, were I to make the attempt.* 

You will recollect, that at the beginning of this 
discourse I observed, — " It is not so much my in- 
tention to show what opinions moral writers, and 
writers on the law of nature and of nations have 
expressed concerning the doctrine of retaliation, as 
to show what appears to have been the mind of 

* See Note A. 



14 

Christ, and what comports with the religion which 
he founded, and which we profess." 

If, on inquiry, we should find, that the best 
of those writers Avere in favour of the doctrine in 
question, and find, also, that Christ expressed him- 
self strongly against it, we should think ourselves 
bound to submit to the authority of Christ, rather 
than to the authority of men, however learned and 
wise, and however much their opinions may have 
been respected ; and I am very much mistaken, if 
it has not been made to appear, that retaliation, as 
commonly understood, is directly contrary to the 
doctrine of Christ, and the spirit of his gospel. 

We may, therefore, conclude, that were the Son 
of God now in the world, and to give his opinion 
on the subject, which we have been considering, it 
would be similar to that which he gave about 
eighteen hundred years ago. We may conceive 
that he would speak to a multitude convened to 
hear him, as he spake to his disciples and the mul- 
titude, seated at the foot of the mount. " Ye have 
heard that it hath been said, by the expounders 
of your laws, — yt may retaliate the injuries, 
which ye sufter from one another in times of 
war, — ^ye may render evil for evil, burning for 
burning, devastation for devastation ; and, in some 
cases, ye may take away the lives of innocent sub- 
jects of an enemy nation, when such are in your 
power, to retaliate for wrongs done to your nation, 
or to the subjects of it ; but I say unto you, that 
ye resist not evil in any of those ways. If your 
enemies have acted like savages, take heed that ye 
do not as they have done. If your enemies have 



15 

been cruel in the treatment which they have show- 
ed to you or to your brethren, take heed that ye be 
not cruel also. If your enemy have shed the blood 
of prisoners and captives unjustly, take heed that 
ye be not guilty of the same abominable wicked- 
ness." In some such language, but in a manner 
infinitely more pointed and impressive, we may 
suppose, were the Son of God now on earth, he 
would give his opinion on the subject of retaliation. 
The mind of Christ is the same now that it was 
eighteen hundred years ago. He then abhorred in- 
justice and cruelty, he now abhors them. He then 
forbad his disciples and those, who attended on 
his preaching, the retaliating of evils, and were he 
now in the world he would forbid the same thine. 

o 

I have now said what I proposed to say ; and if 
it be made plain, that the mind of Christ, and the 
spirit of his religion be against the retaliation of in- 
juries, as understood and practised by the men of 
the world, serious christians are bound, by the re- 
gard which they have for their Lord and Master, to 
bear their testimony against a practice so inhuman 
and cruel. 

Let us now turn our eyes from the awful scenes, 
which a country presents, where war has raged, and 
where contending armies have retaliated injuries on 
each other. Let us turn from burning towns, from 
countries laid waste, women and children driven 
from the comforts, which the labours of the sum- 
mer season had provided for them, and perishing 
in want.* Let us turn from an unrighteous, an 
unnecessary and ruinous war,t and pray, that he, 

* See Note B. t T^'ote C. 



16 

who ruleth in the heavens, would have mercy upon 
us ; that he, who loveth righteousness would pro- 
tect and save us ; and grant, that being delivered 
from our enemies, and from all, who in any ways 
obstruct our prosperity and happiness, we may 
serve the Lord without fear, in peace and " in ho- 
" liness all the days of our life." 



itfi? 



.sq lo 



APPENDIX, 



NOTE A. PAGE 13. 

THE Avar beUeen Great Britain and the Unit- 
ed States of America seems to be taking a character, which 
threatens uncommon distress, not only to such as may be in ac- 
tual service, but to the innocent subjects of both nations. When 
nations at war adopt a ruinous system of retaliation, and return 
not only slaughter for slaughter, but burning for burning, the 
war is no longer honourable, Avhatever the object at first may 
have been ; it assumes a savage charactei", and becomes a Avar of 
barbarians. 

It is not for me to say, which of the present contending poAvers 
gave the first offence, and provoked the other to retaliate. The 
faithful historian will inform posterity, how the present war be- 
gan, and hoAV it has been conducted ; who first sat fire to towns 
and villages ; to the houses of unoffending husbandmen ; the 
huts ' "ar-ats, and of the natives of the wilderness. 

But another, and it is believed quite a new kind of retalia- 
tion, has of late called up the publick attention, and threatens 
the last extreme of misery to such unhappy persons as may be 
held to suffer under it. I hope Ave shall give no offence, if Ave in- 
quire, Avhether there be any laAV noAv in existence, by which the 
innocent subjects of any country may be seized, confined in pris- 
on, and put to death, because the government of their country 
has unjustly punished the subjects of the government thus re- 
taliating ? If there be any such laAV, where shall Ave find it ? 
Perhaps among the laws of Draco, which we are informed 
"Avere Avritten in letters of blood !" Those laAvs, however, Avere 
done aAvay by Solon, a less speculative, but a much wiser and 
more practical legislator. We find something in the Roman 
laws of the tAvelve tables, concerning the retaliation of injuries, 
but Avhat is there written does not apply to the doctrine iioav at- 
tempted to be established ; it is almost verbatim from the laAV of 
Moses. 

Writers on the law of nature and of nations hold, that inju- 
ries may, under certain circumstances, be retaliated ; but the 



18 

exercise of such a law is so restricted, that it is believed no 
aiitliority can be derived from the most approved of those wri- 
ters, to support the principie, that the innocent subjects of any 
civilized nation may be seized and executed, because the govern- 
ment of :hat nation has been guilty of -a very unjust and cruel 
action. The following 'passages Irom Vattel are much to our 
purpose : " When the war is m ith a savage nation, which ob- 
" serves no niles, and never gives quarter, it may be chastised 
" in the pereons of any seized or taken, they are among the guil- 
" ty, that by this rigour they may be brought to conform to the 
" laws of humanity. But whenever severity is not absolutely 
" necessary, clemency is to be used He, A^ho has the most just 
" cause to punish a sovereign as his enemy, wiii always incur the 
" reproach of cruelty, should he cause the punishment to fall on 
" the innocent people ! Scipio's generosity is to be imitated. 
" That great man having reduced some S\)amsh prijices, who had 
" revolted against the Romans, declared to them, that, on a 
" breach of their faith, he would not call the innocent hostages 
" to an account, but themselves. Alexander the Great having 
" cause of complaint against Darius for some mal-practices sent 
"him word, that if he continued to make war in such a manner, 
" he would pursue him to the utmost, and give no quarter." 
" It is tJms an enemy, violating the laws of war, is to be checked, 
" and not by causing the penalty due to the crime to fall on m- 
" nocent victims.'''' 

Pufiendorf is equally mild and christian-like in what he says 
about retaliation ; " In one of the laws of the Tw elve Tables," 
says he, " it is instituted, that the man Avho breaks another's 
" limbs, unless he can make his peace, and compound with him, 
" shall suffer the like !" but adds, " it is plain from the institute 
" de injuriis, that retaliation Avas grown out of use at Rome." 

It may be well to inquire, and, if possible, to satisfy our- 
selves, Avhether or not there be any law of tlie United States, or 
of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, by which the innocent 
subjects of any country v, hatever, may be seized, imprisoned, 
and put to death, because the government of their countiy has, 
in the opinion of oiu- government, unjustly confined and put to 
death, per' ons whom our government claims as subjects, and who 
are claimed also by the government, Avhich so condemns and 
punishes them. And if there be no laAv in our free country, 
thus to condemn and put to death innocent persons, where is 
the judge who Avill pronounce the sentence of death ? Where 
is the marslial who would venture to execute them ? 

As the doctrine of retaliation has of late excited gi-eat inter- 
est, I liave endeavoured to ascertain the numbers of innocent 
British and American subjects, which have been seized, and 
held in confinement. See bottom of Note (B.) 



19 



NOTE B. PAGE 15. 

OUR compassion has lately been called into painful 
exercise, by the sufferings of many innocent people, whose 
houses have been burnt, by what I fear will be found, a wanton 
exercise of military power on one side, and by retaliating ven« 
geance on the other. 

By quoting from a proclamation of the commander of the Bri- 
tish forces in North America, I shall not be understood as acced- 
ing in the smallest degree to his reasoning ; for I condemn the 
practice of retaliating injuries altogether, as immoral, and con- 
trary to the command of Christ. I therefore quote the Avords 
of Lieut. General Provost, merely as reasons which he offers 
for a painful act of retaliation. 

" The complete success which has attended his majesty's 
" arms on the Niagara frontier having placed in our possession 
" the Avhole of the enemy's posts on that line, it became a mat- 
" ter of imperious duty to retaliate on America the miseries, 
" which the unfortunate inhabitants of Newark had been made 
" to suffer upon the evacuation of Fort George. 

" The villages of Lewistown, Black Rock, and Buffalo have 
" accordingly been burned. 

" At the same time that his excellency the commander of the 
" forces sincerely deprecates this mode of warfare, he trusts that 
" it will be sufficient to call the attention of every candid and 
" impartial person, both amongst ourselves and the enemy, to 
" the circumstances from Avhich it has arisen, to satisfy them, that 
" this departure from the established usages of war has origina- 
" ted with America herself, and to her alone are justly chargea- 
" ble all the awful and unhappy consequences, which have 
" hitherto flowed, and are likely to result from it." 

From sources of the best information, the author of the pre- 
cedhig discourse is able to lay before the publick the foUow- 
lowiug account of the proceedings of the American and the Bri- 
tish governments on the system of retaliation which has lately 
been adopted. It appears, that 

23 American prisoners were arrested, as British subjects, by 
the English government in Canada. That 

28 British prisoners, in retaliation, were confined by the 
American government. That 

46 Americans, in retaliation, were confined by the English 
government. That 

46 British subjects, in retaliation, were confined by the Amer- 
ican government. That, after this, orders were issued 
for the confinement of 

92 American prisoners. " Seventy were actually confined at 
Halifax, on board the prison ship Success i that as soon as 



% 



20 

a sufficient number of either government, privateer, or 
letter of uiarque prisoners should be taken, the number 
Avould be completed : that the ofiicers and owners of the 
•whale ships, Avhich sailed before the declaration of war, 
would be exceptions, and on that account a part of the sev- 
enty had been released ; but that the order Avas actually is- 
sued, and would be put into execution 1" 

NOTE C. PAGE 15. 

If we may judge from what we experience, from Avhat 
oui' eyes behold, and from tlie memorials ,of a suireriug peo- 
ple, especially in the northern and eastern parts of the United 
States, we shall be bold to say, the present war, in which our 
country is engaged, is unnecessary and ruinous. We need no 
other evidence, than the objects continually before us, to prove, 
that the war, with its extraordinary accompaniments, has ruined 
our commerce ; and if the prosperity of the eastern states de- 
pend on commerce, the ruin of commerce must be the ruin of 
this section of the union. The commerce of the American States, 
it is confessed, was greatly injured by the orders and decrees of 
the great European belligerents : it was still more injured by 
certain restrictive measures, such as a non-intercourse and em- 
bargo before the war. The living principle of commerce, how- 
ever, remained after the war was declared, and, by a little at- 
tention, might have been preserved, and kept in action ; but the 
late embargo act was like a fatal stroke of the palsy ; it has de- 
stroyed all motion, and put a stop to the pulse of life. 

Look at your harbour, and you will scarcely see a sail spread 
to the wind of your own canvass. Look at your ships, which 
ought to be employed in bringing Avealth from every quarter of 
the world, perishing Avith the Aveather, and rotting in the docks. 
Look at your M'harves, where you have been accustomed to be- 
hold enterprise and activity, noAv wholly forsaken, unless here 
and there a wanderer, to gaze at fallen greatness, and sigh for 
better times! Look every Avheie, aad your eyes Avill witness, 
that the war has hitherto been ruinous ; and if ruinous, certain- 
ly unnecessary ; for surely no people are bound to ruin them- 
selves. And, in addition to the ruin of commerce, and the oth- 
er calamities attending the Avar, a debt is accumulating upon us, 
beyond all example. Under the intolerable burden, our chil- 
dren and children's children Avill groan, and call each one to his 

felloAV, " TELL us WHAT MIGHTY BOON AVAS PURCHASED FOR US, 
AT SUCU VAST EXPENSE ?" 



■:M'.K>iii 

'i'4 



vt^' . Ml »■■'': *t'fl 







m 



K\ 


'■■• ■■'■ ■''■S 


yv 


.■ > ' •■ , ' ■•'ll 


ji 


-, vVv,V 


;\'! 


:■ •"■■' ^' "r^ 


[•■ : 


■" 1 "'.'. ■■'.'./ 


V ■ ■ : ■, 


■■::■'■/•::•;;« 



^' '^'-'i^JUHttiS 




0011 8371100 



